Various ideas for fixing and improving sensor issues

After reading a variety of posts on what is wrong with sensor boats and what is right, the positives and negatives of diminishing returns, I feel that certain elements of the volumetric sensors provide opportunities, not just penalties.  Note that certain of these ideas are highly-dependent upon others in the list.
Note that the first set of 4 ideas would take a lot of AI work to actually implement. The subsequent concept would not, and is a quick fix that still takes advantage of both radius and volumetric sensors.

1.) Sensors should be split between close-range, long-range, and targeting.  A close-range sensor is your basic sensor package that lights up space around the ship, and maxes at one (note idea 3).  The long-range sensors are the ones that are stacked on ships, and enable you to scan at greater distances around a ship; not just in all directions, but in a cone alternatively (if you're looking out towards a hostile frontier, you don't need half your sensors facing back towards home).  This could be particularly valuable at enabling a fleet of ships to benefit from multiple sensor ships, as several ships could fill sensor gaps and increase the fleet's overall range (a minimum of long-range sensors would be required to actually scan outwards though).  Then targeting and survey sensors would both enhance your accuracy in combat (note idea 2, with some form of either being essential on warships), with that being a fringe benefit for survey ships (so they don't need to waste sensor space).  Targeting sensors would be a way of adding long-range sensor capacity to warships without it feeling utterly-pointless if they're matched in a fleet with normal sensor boats.

2.) Ships should require targeting sensors for combat.  Even if sensors are left as-is, if a targeting sensor is needed for a ship to engage other warships effectively (with diminishing accuracy returns at a certain level, but bonuses against jamming or evasion), this would greatly reduce the problem that currently exists where the only logical ships to mount sensors on are pure sensor boats and survey ships.  Given that jamming modules already exist which reduce accuracy, allowing ships to mitigate these problems with sensors would add practical value to attaching sensors to basic ships or using fleet-wide sensor modules.

3.) Add starting (i.e. free) modules to each ship.  Each ship starts with some basic level of sensor range, engine power, life support, hit points, and tactical speed.  This is based on the ship type and your researched empire bonuses.  You should be able to switch these modules out for (limited selection) more or less-advanced variants, which will enable you to keep smaller ships competitive despite their smaller capacity (if you don't change anything, ships would effectively remain unchanged as they are now).  This would enable ships to switch out whether they start with a generic close-range sensor or a targeting sensor (allowing you to use tiny ships as warships despite a sensor requirement).  This would also enable you to reduce the cost of ships by mounting cheaper but less-efficient equipment.

4.) Add sensor stealth and cloaking.  If long-range sensors and close-range sensors are differentiated, then you can set up a counter to sensor boats as cloaked ships sneak past 360-scanning long-range sensors, while sensor-stealthed ships sneak past long-range sensors being used to scan cones.  Cloaks could eliminate the profile in generic scans, while ships with advanced sensors could focus their scans in a particular direction to potentially spot a cloaked ship (which would still have reduced profile, meaning the scan would have to be closer than normal); sensor stealth would conversely only have a reduced profile, meaning that slipping by the edge of the scan radius (which should be identifiable, since sensors typically send out as much energy as they pick up, i.e. active sonar; this also provides a converse option for passive sensors which don't send out emissions) would enable a sensor-stealthed ship to evade a sensor boat scanning long-distance in the same direction but lacking the sensor volume to properly cover the ship at its distance.  Also, cloaked or sensor-stealthed ships would be harder to identify, making long-range readings on them (aka their size, armament, modules, etc) difficult to accurately identify.

 

Alternatively, just add sensor stealth, separate a single close-range sensor (radius-based) versus additional volumetric long-range sensors.  If you can't scan everything in a direction, then you can pick how far out you want your ship to scan in a cone versus what radius you want for full-volume scans (basically, your ships can set a distance where the sensors only partially cover the space ahead, and you can pick how they scan).  They could default to scan ahead of the ship, aim for unexplored space, rotate each move or each turn, or simply focus in a predetermined area (obviously needing to wait in order to actually shift).  If the sensors are rotating and they identify a ship, but they are not fully covering it, then you would not get clear intel on what you spotted (maybe an unknown moniker spots up for a ship type, and you only know if it's armed, what faction, and what size it is).  Either sensors would need to be pre-aimed at a direction, or you would need to get it into your 360-degree sensor radius to clearly identify the ship.

Basically, sensors covering volume instead of radius means you can actually ADD tactical depth by having multiple ships scan in directions, adding stealth tech, and adding a fog of war beyond pure invisibility to what exactly you are seeing.  If a ship is at the bare edge of your sensor range, you shouldn't clearly identify what it is unless your basic (i.e. close-range) sensors are detecting it.  The AI programming to add a stealth and tactical dimension would be more difficult, but at the very least, adding some fog-of-war rather than simply taking away sensor capabilities (and better yet, enabling radius-based sensors to still work in a rotating sonar-like system without actually identifying everything like universe satellites).

11,585 views 5 replies
Reply #1 Top

Well...

1. Your "close range" sensor is already implemented on each hull:  they all come with a vision of 1 space (plus any empire bonuses) by default, with no additional modules needed. Why should some hulls have more than this by default?  Also, you *absolutely* would be scanning in a full sphere as you move; each hex is a light year or more across; you're not thinking about the scale being represented.

Long range sensors on a cone are completely at odds with a game that doesn't differentiate headings. The icon might be pointed in one direction on the map, but that's not a heading, since you can move the ship in any direction with no penalty. There's also no such thing as "hitting from behind" or similar; thus, I can't think of a way to add directional sensors.  Plus, to be honest, they make no sense in general.  This is a *STRATEGIC* game, not tactical combat simulation.

2. Targetting sensors are already there, in the various modules which enhance a ship's combat capabilities (or a whole fleet's). They're also assumed in the various "assist" modules for weapons types.  I don't see really any benefit in having them broken out separately as something you have to add. All combat happens in a single hex, after all.  Also note that sensor boats die really quickly in combat (if you're doing it right), since they're a non-combat ship which now can be prioritized targeted by those attacking craft which have "support" as their top attack target, and they take up valuable logistical space in a fleet.   Plopping a Sensor Array on a ship here and there as a part of a fleet is a real good idea rather than drag sensor boats into combat.

3.  See #1. Totally unnecessary.

4. Better Cloaking and Jamming would be nice. I'd deal with cloaking by simply have it reduce everyone scanning it's range by the strength of the cloak. Thus, if I've got a Cloak of Anti-Sensor Power 10, and my opponent has a Sensor Power of 30, my opponent's effective Sensor Power when determining if I'm detected is 20. In this case, that means a -2 radius.

 

Honestly, good ideas for a Tactical game, but they'd lead to far, far too much micromanaging in GC3, because you'd have to worry about positioning your fleets far more carefully, spend much more time assembling your fleets, and adding significant amounts of complexity for not a whole lots of really enjoyable game play benefits (that I can see).

Reply #2 Top

Do have to admit a lot of this was thinking out loud and typing the idea stream, but I had a pretty clear idea with the conical-sensors, though I probably didn't explain it well.

Right now, sensors scan in every direction at full power, and everything within is fully identified while everything outside is invisible.  If volumetric sensors are added, then at the very least you can vary how far you're scanning at full-power, and how far you're spreading your sensor range more thin so that you can at least identify potential objects (planets, resources, ships) without clarifying any details about them.  Alternatively, ships or stations can set directional sensors so that a ship can focus its sensor power in one direction.  This is something where you could easily implement it by drawing an arc over the map after selecting something like sensor arc.

For targeting sensors, it's one of those components that either isn't available early, or requires thulium (I don't like major ship components being locked by unique resources personally), and the idea I was bouncing around at first was allowing you to basically increase the production cost of ships in exchange for higher sensor range or improved accuracy in combat; in retrospect it's probably fluff though.

 

The problems from posting after midnight :P

Reply #3 Top

Personally I think sensors are in a good place now.  The low end sensor modules are bulky and don't provide much vision.  The high end sensors give incredible vision but are extremely  xpensive.  much better balance than we had before.

Reply #4 Top

At first I found the idea very interesting but the problem with conical sensors is that if you move the ships in a circle you also get 360° of coverage but at way longer range. So instead of being a tradeoff restricted cone sensors but longer range vs 360° but shorter range, it becomes a tradeoff longer range with micro vs shorter range without micro. Even if you don't micro the ships, sensor ships with 120° sensors free up 2/3s of the sensor power while still having a large enough fow to prevent ships from sneeking by and they can be further away from the frontlines so they are even harder to take out.
And I don't know if there is anyway to fix that. :/

Those are my thoughts on this but if you're interested in more in depth sensor/intel systems you should check out my suggestion thread that has a whole section dedicated around that and I would appreciate any kind of feedback on it.

Reply #5 Top

Quoting ManiiNames, reply 3

Personally I think sensors are in a good place now.  The low end sensor modules are bulky and don't provide much vision.  The high end sensors give incredible vision but are extremely  xpensive.  much better balance than we had before.

 

Yep!  I think they are fine as they are.  Given the strategic nature of the game I think they get the job done without introducing more complexities and control in this feature of the game.  Also agree fully with trims2u comments ....